Judgment No. 45013 of 2024: Interpretation of Precautionary Measures for Non-Italian Speaking Defendants

The recent judgment No. 45013 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on personal precautionary measures, particularly for those defendants who do not understand the Italian language. This legal provision fits into a broader context of safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly the right to defense, and raises fundamental questions regarding communication between the judiciary and defendants from different linguistic backgrounds.

Context and Case

The Court examined the case of a defendant, G. A., who did not understand the Italian language. At the time of issuing the precautionary order, the judge was unaware of this circumstance. The translation of the order was arranged only after the execution of the precautionary measure and before the guarantee interrogation. During the latter, an interpreter was present who assisted the defendant, allowing him to understand the content of the order and the accusations.

The Court established that, in such cases, the guarantee interrogation is not null, thus excluding the risk of a violation of the right to defense. This is based on the principle that the defendant has the option to exercise the right not to respond, a decision that should not necessarily be considered the result of a misunderstanding.

Summary of the Judgment

Non-Italian speaking defendant - Circumstance unknown to the judge at the time of issuing the precautionary order - Translation arranged after the execution of the measure, but before the guarantee interrogation - Presence, during the interrogation, of an interpreter who conveys to the defendant the content of the precautionary order, the questions, and the accusations - Nullity of the guarantee interrogation - Exclusion - Case. Regarding personal precautionary measures, the guarantee interrogation is not null in cases where the judge, who was unaware of the defendant's lack of knowledge of the Italian language at the time of issuing the order, arranged for a translation into the defendant's native language after the execution of the measure but before the interrogation, and employs an interpreter to convey the content of the precautionary order, the questions, and the accusations made. (Case in which the Court excluded that such "modus procedendi" involved a violation of the right to defense on the grounds that the decision to exercise the right not to respond, made during the guarantee interrogation, constituted a precise defensive choice and not a necessity arising from a lack of understanding of the charges).

Legal Implications and Conclusions

This judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring a fair trial, even for defendants who do not speak the language of the country in which they are located. The presence of an interpreter and the translation of documents are key elements to ensure that defendants can adequately defend themselves. The Court, referring to the New Code of Criminal Procedure, highlights the need for an approach that respects human rights and procedural guarantees, through appropriate and timely measures.

In conclusion, judgment No. 45013 of 2024 represents an important step towards affirming the rights of defense in the context of precautionary measures, reaffirming that justice must be accessible to all, regardless of the language spoken.

Bianucci Law Firm